While I might agree after the first 30 games of the season, that a Naslund trade might have merit, trading for another elite D man with a similar salary to Naslund's would not be in the best interest of the club going into the 1st game.

With the number of moves this team has made, there has to be a settling in period to see how they will respond as a new group and to a new system.

The rosters certainly reflect top D men on their teams, however it is just that. A list. Players still have to play on ice.

Farhan Lalji wrote: For this example, I'll say that we trade Naslund for Redden.

Although Anaheim's top 2 d-men would still be better than hours, I'd be willing to bet that our COMBINED top 3.....even top 4 (Salo) would be better than Anaheim's top 3 or top 4.

A number of assumptions at this stage of pre-season. Methinks that the systems that Calgary and Anaheim play may reflect their success on defense more so than the "elite" label that bestows some of the players.

Farhan Lalji wrote: In goal, Luongo would be better than Brizgalov.

Kipper would (marginally) be better than Luongo, but the Canucks' defense would be significantly stronger than Calgary's (if I'm not mistaken)

Not sure how you can make a statement that one player would be better than another at this point of the season.

While it is still early in pre-season, the comments made by fans of the Nux that Luongo would be the saviour because he was now playing with a much better team is still to be proven.

As it has been shown in other markets (and other sports) throwing large amounts of money at star players isn't always a formula for success.

Bartman wrote:All fine and dandy Mr. Lalji. But... With the exception of the Ducks most teams are considered lucky if they have 1 elite level D-man. There is no way we could pick one up via trade even for Naslund.

I know you are only talking hypothetically but your comment still has to make sense.

If there's anything that we could learn from the past few years, it's NEVER say 'NEVER'. In the last few years, we've seen Thornton, Pronger, and Luongo all moved in what seemed like a blink of an eye.

While you're right that picking up an elite D-man is a tall order, I DO think that the Canucks should keep their eyes open for one....possibly using Naslund as trade bait.

Even if it's not an ELITE D-man, I wouldn't mind the Canucks moving Naslund for a decent defenseman + prospect (or a utility forward of sorts).

I still believe that the key to the Canucks doing well this year (or any team for that matter), is having STRENGTHS.

I believe that if the Canucks got another defenseman who at MINIMUM, was on the level of Salo/Mitchell, then our defense would be a strength.

smalien wrote:While I might agree after the first 30 games of the season, that a Naslund trade might have merit, trading for another elite D man with a similar salary to Naslund's would not be in the best interest of the club going into the 1st game.

With the number of moves this team has made, there has to be a settling in period to see how they will respond as a new group and to a new system.

I agree with you, to some degree, regarding the "settling in" period. However, if recent history is of any indication, all Stanley Cup finalists/winners have a few things in common:

A) Top notch goaltending.
B) Strong Leadership
C) Another STRENGTH other than just goaltending.......based on recent years, this strength is either derived from.....

As far as 'A' goes, Luongo looks like he fits that bill. We finally may have a top notch goalie. 'B' --> Naslund, Linden, Ohlund, Sedin twins, Cooke, and Mitchell. Although I think we could still improve in the leadership department, I don't think its that bad either. None of these guys have won a cup, but Dave Anderchuck and Rod Brindamour hadn't won cups until recently either.

So - in my opinion, the Canucks have 'A' and 'B' all set. 'C' however, is where they fall apart IMO.

Do the Canucks have an exceptionally sound defensive team? (i.e. like Calgary did last year, the Devils in yesteryear, Minnesota Wild?). No.

Do the Canucks have excellent depth/balance? (i.e. similar to the Oilers, Sabres, Predators). No.

Other than goaltending, a team NEEDS another strength in which their team is built around.....this comes in the form of either exceptional defense, or exceptional depth.

To me, it seems like Nonis tried to go for the latter (depth). By getting guys like Bulis, Pyatt, Chouinard, Mitchell, etc., Nonis was trying to build a more balanced line-up.

Unfortunately however, when you have 6+ guys on the team making over $3 mill, it's almost impossible to create BALANCE/DEPTH. Therefore, wouldn't it have been better for Nonis to use that money to build a strength? (i.e. defense).

Think of why a team like San Jose went out and traded for Mark Bell (despite the Sharks already being an offensively potent team).

Why would the Ducks go out and trade for Pronger? (despite already having a respectable defense).

The key in today's NHL, is having STRENGTHS. In the cap era, ALL teams will have a weakness of sorts. It's almost unavoidable (unless certain players unexpectedly overachieve). The key to success is building a strength so strong, that it completely outweighs the weakness.

smalien wrote:
Not sure how you can make a statement that one player would be better than another at this point of the season.

LOL. After that major rant I just posted, I realized I never acknowledged your statement.

Using an exaagerated example...at this point in the season, I'm pretty sure that Peter Forsberg will be better than Tyler Bouck. .

Although I see what you're saying, I don't think its too absurd to forecast player projections for this year (based on the player's history, talent, etc.).

Just one last point I want to make regarding Naslund. I don't dislike Naslund. On the contrary, I think he's an excellent player....and a good guy.

However - for 6 million, I think the Canucks could get more for their money in other places (for reasons I've already stated). Furthermore - under Veenyo's system, the Canucks will be expected to backcheck far more and play a more defensive-minded game....not exactly strong suits of Naslund.

smalien wrote:While I might agree after the first 30 games of the season, that a Naslund trade might have merit, trading for another elite D man with a similar salary to Naslund's would not be in the best interest of the club going into the 1st game.

With the number of moves this team has made, there has to be a settling in period to see how they will respond as a new group and to a new system.

I agree with you, to some degree, regarding the "settling in" period. However, if recent history is of any indication, all Stanley Cup finalists/winners have a few things in common:

A) Top notch goaltending.
B) Strong Leadership
C) Another STRENGTH other than just goaltending.......based on recent years, this strength is either derived from.....

As far as 'A' goes, Luongo looks like he fits that bill. We finally may have a top notch goalie. 'B' --> Naslund, Linden, Ohlund, Sedin twins, Cooke, and Mitchell. Although I think we could still improve in the leadership department, I don't think its that bad either. None of these guys have won a cup, but Dave Anderchuck and Rod Brindamour hadn't won cups until recently either.

So - in my opinion, the Canucks have 'A' and 'B' all set. 'C' however, is where they fall apart IMO.

Do the Canucks have an exceptionally sound defensive team? (i.e. like Calgary did last year, the Devils in yesteryear, Minnesota Wild?). No.

Do the Canucks have excellent depth/balance? (i.e. similar to the Oilers, Sabres, Predators). No.

Other than goaltending, a team NEEDS another strength in which their team is built around.....this comes in the form of either exceptional defense, or exceptional depth.

To me, it seems like Nonis tried to go for the latter (depth). By getting guys like Bulis, Pyatt, Chouinard, Mitchell, etc., Nonis was trying to build a more balanced line-up.

Unfortunately however, when you have 6+ guys on the team making over $3 mill, it's almost impossible to create BALANCE/DEPTH. Therefore, wouldn't it have been better for Nonis to use that money to build a strength? (i.e. defense).

Think of why a team like San Jose went out and traded for Mark Bell (despite the Sharks already being an offensively potent team).

Why would the Ducks go out and trade for Pronger? (despite already having a respectable defense).

The key in today's NHL, is having STRENGTHS. In the cap era, ALL teams will have a weakness of sorts. It's almost unavoidable (unless certain players unexpectedly overachieve). The key to success is building a strength so strong, that it completely outweighs the weakness.

Just my opinion.

]

Great post.

In a salary cap system, having a STRENGTH that overpowers a weakness is definitely needed. Every team has weaknesses now, however I agree with Mr. Lalji, in that the Canucks right now have no forseeable strengths.

We'll see, but right now I don't have a whole lot of confidence in the bottom 6 forwards to score....so that eliminates balance. Our top 3 D is a top 10 team asset. Maybe that's the route that should be taken if the Nucks struggle through the first half.

Nazzy's 6 million could be used to get a solid 2 million D, a 2 million forward with offense, and 2 million cap room.

Also, imo, Morrison isn't off the hook for that 3 million, and neither is cooke on that 1.5. I'd like to see if it all plays out, but I don't have a good feeling about the team at the moment. Being patient with this roster points to have Vancouver missing the playoffs (I know its pre-season, its just a feeling i've had all summer).

There has been so many changes so we need to give them time, but i'm not opposed to trading anybody anymore...come 30 games in and were under 10th place in the west, these moves are something serious to consider.

the Cunning Linguist wrote:I also agree with Mr. Lalji. More and more, I'm thinking this team looks like Florida Panthers North...

LOL. It's funny you mention that, because I was thinking the exact same thing.

The Canucks are basically a slightly more advanced version of the Florida Panthers of 05/06.

I really hate to be negative, but I'm telling it like I see it.

Right now - the Canucks only look decent with a 100% healthy roster. The Canucks are AVERAGE up front, and are AVERAGE on the blue-line. All it will take is one key injury for the Canucks to be weak at either.

Either dramatically improve our 3rd/4th lines (via trade), or improve our depth on defense (via trades)....and play a system that accomodates that.

As of right now, I I think the Canucks are a 7th/8th place team at BEST.

Brizgalov showed some distinct signs of flakiness last postseason (Cherry pointed this out as well). Furthermore, I didn't like how Brizgalov ripped on Giguerre a little in the off-season. People like that usually lack true character.

Giguerre on the other hand, has shown an ability to carry a team on his back. 2003/04 is an example.

Since Brizgalov may have a higher trade value at the deadline this season, I wonder what the Ducks could get for him. I shudder to think if....

a) Ducks got a top-line center in return for Brizgalov (to play with Selanne)
b) Giguerre returned back to his old form.

I also wonder how San Jose will fair this year. Like the Canucks of yesteryear, they seem to be interested in building a team around their offensive prowess. While teams like this are usually fun to watch, they often underachieve come playoff time.

The Sharks are another team that have two solid #1 goalies (I'd trade Nabakov at the deadline if I was SJ's GM).

Thing about SJ is that they have alot of good players, alot of good prospects and shitloads of cap space. Gives them alot of options. Back to the topic though I think DN will give this team a few months to show what they can do but unless they overperform expect to see alot of deadline deals to stock up for the rebuild.

Naslund will not get traded. Dave Nonis doesn't have the guts and he is probably the overall favourite player of Canucks fans. I'd make sure Nonis sleeps with one eye open if he makes a trade with Nazzy in the mix.